[Vision2020] Idaho marriage law heads to appeals court

Sun Sep 7 12:08:27 PDT 2014

I find it absolutely disturbing that Wasden seems to be advocating marital deception.  So much for that sanctity of marriage position!

This was my fav “I’m the incumbent idiot governor who wants your vote” quote:

Otter, in his briefs, argued that Idaho needs to exclusively preserve opposite-sex marriage because it results in “fewer children who experience fatherlessness and motherlessness.”

I suppose that’s one way to ignore the fact that Idaho is in the Top Five for divorce rates in the nation.  And, I guess that’s a way to also ignore the Idaho’s existing rampant problem with fathers or mothers – married & divorced or never married --  who already abandon their children to the other parent.  

I don’t have any stats, but when I think about the kids I know who are living in families where the parents have split, the continuing involvement of both parents in their children’s lives is far more common when the couples were same sex than not.

But, heck – since when have I expected Idaho’s GOP to care about facts or logical coherency???

Saundra Lund

Moscow, ID

If you cannot attain knowledge without torturing a dog, you must do without knowledge.

~ George Bernard Shaw

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Shirley Ringo
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 8:19 AM
To: 'Moscow Cares'; 'Moscow Vision 2020'
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho marriage law heads to appeals court

Huh?

Wasden, in his briefs, argued that Idaho’s marriage laws don’t discriminate. “They permit a man to marry a woman, or a woman to marry a man, regardless of sexual orientation,” his lawyers wrote. “Idaho’s marriage laws treat men and women equally.”

S

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>  [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Moscow Cares
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 8:57 AM
To: Moscow Vision 2020
Subject: [Vision2020] Idaho marriage law heads to appeals court

"Wasden also argued that Idaho’s same-sex marriage ban promotes the welfare of children because only opposite-sex couples can procreate. “Same-sex couples stand apart in this regard, because whatever may prompt them to seek civil marriage, it cannot include procreating a child."

According to Attorney General Wasden (and, thusly, the state of Idaho), the qualifier for a couple to get married is the ability to procreate.

Questions, Mr. Wasden:  

Would the state of Idaho permit a couple to marry if the male had previously undergone a vasectomy or the female had previously undergone a hysterectomy?

Should, then, the state of Idaho require an examination, prior to marriage, to determine a couple's ability to procreate!

-------------------------------------

Courtesy of today's (September 7, 2014) Spokesman-Review.

--------------------

Idaho marriage law heads to appeals court

When lawyers for the state of Idaho and for four Idaho lesbian couples face off in a federal appeals courtroom in San Francisco on Monday, the fate of Idaho’s invalidated ban on same-sex marriage will hang in the balance.

Idaho is pushing hard in its fight to overturn the May U.S. District Court decision that found its ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

“I am firmly committed to upholding the will of the people and defending our constitution,” Idaho Gov. Butch Otter said after the district court ruled against Idaho.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear the arguments on Monday afternoon in San Francisco, and it also will hear arguments in gay marriage cases from Hawaii and Nevada. But Hawaii already allows same-sex marriage, and Nevada officials have declined to defend their law. So most of the focus will be on Idaho.

Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden have pledged to defend the state’s ban all the way to the nation’s highest court. But long before Idaho’s case reaches its final outcome, the U.S. Supreme Court likely will weigh in on other states’ marriage law cases and settle the issue.

“The Idaho case is not going to get to the Supreme Court for quite a while, even if the 9th Circuit rules pretty quickly,” said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law who’s been tracking gay marriage cases around the country. “And the Utah and Oklahoma ones are there and ready.”

Even Wasden acknowledged that last week, quietly and without comment signing on to a Colorado-led brief, along with 16 other states, urging the high court to take up the Utah and Oklahoma cases and settle the issue once and for all. Federal appellate courts in both those states have invalidated their bans on same-sex marriage.

Though the arguments – and the judges’ questions – are significant, Tobias said, “Most lawyers and judges will tell you that 90 percent of what appeals courts do and pay attention to is the briefs, because that’s where the legal arguments are made.”

Attorneys on both sides have submitted hundreds of pages of legal arguments.

Otter, in his briefs, argued that Idaho needs to exclusively preserve opposite-sex marriage because it results in “fewer children who experience fatherlessness and motherlessness.” He also argued that if there’s a right to “marry the person of one’s choice” that would mean people would have to be allowed polygamous and incestuous marriages, too.

Wasden, in his briefs, argued that Idaho’s marriage laws don’t discriminate. “They permit a man to marry a woman, or a woman to marry a man, regardless of sexual orientation,” his lawyers wrote. “Idaho’s marriage laws treat men and women equally.”

Deborah Ferguson, the Boise attorney representing the four Idaho couples, took issue with that argument, writing that the right to marry is a right of individuals, not of groups.

Wasden also argued that Idaho’s same-sex marriage ban promotes the welfare of children because only opposite-sex couples can procreate. “Same-sex couples stand apart in this regard, because whatever may prompt them to seek civil marriage, it cannot include procreating a child. There are no exceptions to this biologically driven class differentiation.”

Yet two of the four lesbian couples who sued over Idaho’s ban are raising children together; one couple has a 1-year-old, and another has a 5-year-old.

Ferguson wrote in her brief, “Rather than causing more children to be raised by opposite-sex parents, the only impact of the ban is to harm the many Idaho children who are being raised by same-sex parents.”

Tobias said the assertion that bans on same-sex marriage benefit children hasn’t been successful in cases around the country.

Each side in the case will have just a half-hour to argue on Monday; the judges will intersperse that with their questions.

--------------------

Around the country

• Nineteen states, including Washington, and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry.

• Thirty-one states, including Idaho, have laws or constitutional provisions banning same-sex marriage; nearly all are being challenged.

• All but one of the 23 federal court decisions on the issue have found bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional; the one exception came from a federal judge in Louisiana on Wednesday. A day later, federal courts overturned bans in Wisconsin and Indiana.

-------------------------------------

Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares"

 <http://www.moscowcares.com/> http://www.MoscowCares.com

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140907/a584542e/attachment-0001.html>